Harry Reid's grab for power

Advise and consent is in the Constitution and that little rule you mentioned goes back over 200 years. How does the Senate have any influence on a president without the minority having some sort of power to halt a very bad nomination. Jefferson put this in place to force a president to make more mainstream nominations and not partisan cookie cutter appointments. Like the right to privacy, this is a constitutional protection even without being in the Constitution.

Funny that in 2005 Reid, Biden, Feinstein, Clinton, and Obama (running for the office) were absolutely against the "nuclear" option as threatened by the GOP (but never carried out).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjdbjrXiobQ Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

This is not entirely true. While Jefferson liked the senate rules, many founding fathers, such as the "father of the constitution" James Madison actually rejected the super majority outright. Behold:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1834


And you are correct. The dems did say they were against the Nuclear option, as do all parties out of power. But even they didn't obstruct Bush to this level. They did, but it wasn't nearly like it is today.

I understand why people are upset with this historic senate rule change. I can't say that I'm thrilled with it myself. However, most of you are missing a very big point:

Senate Republican Obstructionism is unprecedented and just as historic. It's never been done like this folks. EVER.

Advise and Consent is in the Constitution. The filibuster, however, is not. They are not the same thing. Because the republicans didn't take the clause seriously, the rules had to be changed.

Google Patricia Millett. She's a VERY WELL QUALIFIED jurist that they were blocking. Why? Because they essentially don't like Obama. That's not what "Advise and Consent" means. The same goes for Mel Watt, who actually is a congressman. IN THE PAST, Congressmen were usually approved pretty quickly... after all, he's one of them. But yet, they are blocking him too.

Again, unprecedented.

And off topic, but why are we praising Wyoming? Yeah, they pay their bills, but that's because they actually receive more federal funding than they send out:

Originally Posted by MrGoodBar

Considering that much of the land in Wyoming falls under the BLM and the National Park Service (open range, Yellowstone & the Tetons) and the government spends additional money on military bases in that state -- not "welfare", the numbers for dollars per capita are skewed when factored against the state's small population. It's the government spending money on itself: not the residents of Wyoming; so, your POV is as flawed as your data; which, btw, is almost nine years old.

What index are you using to compare Wyoming and California, Bert? The murder rate is higher in California. The poverty rate is higher in California. The unemployment rate is higher in California. The overall quality of life is lower for California than for Wyoming.

So, Bert, in what regard is your "more modern" California "better" than "hicksville" Wyoming ... other than California is governed by over-paid, lib-retarded politicos?
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I've been to both places - I liked California better. Can't beat the weather! Plus, go to both places and look around for yourself and decide which one is more progressive. Also, California's 40 million liberals get two Senate votes, as do Wyoming's 800,000 conservatives - so it is a little skewed. That ridiculous imbalance will be further worsened by liberal cities getting bigger, hicksville states getting smaller, but still retaining their Senate votes.

Hey, Bertie! How's that "modern" state of California doing? Yeah, that little backwater place full of rednecks and cowboys called Wyoming CAN PAY ITS BILLS!

Yeah. Let's all be like California.

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

The Feds should reimburse them for taking care of immigrants, then they would have a surplus.

Correct. Data is old.

But do you REALLY think that the trend has changed? Red states have traditionally received more money than bluer states... because they are poorer.

Which is ironic because usually red states ask for lower taxes.

But for shits and giggles, I pulled up this article from 2012. Convinced now?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_recko...our_taxes.html

Correct. Data is old.

But do you REALLY think that the trend has changed? Red states have traditionally received more money than bluer states... because they are poorer.

Which is ironic because usually red states ask for lower taxes.

But for shits and giggles, I pulled up this article from 2012. Convinced now?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_recko...our_taxes.html Originally Posted by MrGoodBar

What you imply -- that the citizens of Wyoming are freeloaders taking government handouts -- is not supported by the evidence you present. The numbers you are citing reflects the government spending money on the government -- not "welfare".

What you imply -- that the citizens of Wyoming are freeloaders taking government handouts -- is not supported by the evidence you present. The numbers you are citing reflects the government spending money on the government -- not "welfare". Originally Posted by I B Hankering

That "government spending money on the government" is typically in the form of hiring people to do work. Do you really believe those people commute from Alabama?

As to being 9 years old, did those parks and federal lands disappear?

That "government spending money on the government" is typically in the form of hiring people to do work. Do you really believe those people commute from Alabama?

As to being 9 years old, did those parks and federal lands disappear? Originally Posted by Old-T

Would you rather the government hire illegals, Old-Twerp: the 'Prophylactic Man'? A job that fulfills a government need is not "welfare", Old-Twerp: the 'Prophylactic Man'.

I do imply it...

But not just from Wyoming, but Red States in general.

Behold:



41%?!? That's ridiculous. And I don't think I saw federal parks in there...

But oh well. Believe what you want.

There is a leap of illogic, IB. What do illegal immigrants have to do with anything in this thread?

The fed $ are going into WYO salaries for the most part. Directly or indirectly.

There is nothing evil about that, but there is no "heroic conservative valor" in it either. It's just another example of twisted RWWs pointing to a situation where the facts don't back their statements.

And this is not an anti-WYO comment on my part. I think Wyoming folks are in general pretty good people. I've just learned not to try matching them at the bar--must be the cold weather but that's an area I cannot hold my own with them at all.

There is a leap of illogic, IB. What do illegal immigrants have to do with anything in this thread?

The fed $ are going into WYO salaries for the most part. Directly or indirectly.

There is nothing evil about that, but there is no "heroic conservative valor" in it either. It's just another example of twisted RWWs pointing to a situation where the facts don't back their statements.

And this is not an anti-WYO comment on my part. I think Wyoming folks are in general pretty good people. I've just learned not to try matching them at the bar--must be the cold weather but that's an area I cannot hold my own with them at all. Originally Posted by Old-T

Totally agree. I love Wyo, and go several times each year.

But I don't get the RW logic when it comes to federal taxes. Sorry to hijack the thread (when it really should be about Senate rules).

I do imply it...

But not just from Wyoming, but Red States in general.

Behold:



41%?!? That's ridiculous. And I don't think I saw federal parks in there...

But oh well. Believe what you want. Originally Posted by MrGoodBar

You're equivocating. Your first chart included these expenditures, but it also included expenditures you now pretend do not exist.

There is a leap of illogic, IB. What do illegal immigrants have to do with anything in this thread?

The fed $ are going into WYO salaries for the most part. Directly or indirectly.

There is nothing evil about that, but there is no "heroic conservative valor" in it either. It's just another example of twisted RWWs pointing to a situation where the facts don't back their statements.

And this is not an anti-WYO comment on my part. I think Wyoming folks are in general pretty good people. I've just learned not to try matching them at the bar--must be the cold weather but that's an area I cannot hold my own with them at all. Originally Posted by Old-T

The implication that Wyoming citizens are receiving "welfare" is false, Old-Twerp: the 'Prophylactic Man'.

The implication that Wyoming citizens are receiving "welfare" is false, Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Learn to read. The chart was federal money, not necessarily welfare. That "implication" is only in your twisted mind.

Or can you not distinguish the two? Probably not since all the federal money YOU see probably is welfare.

IB: Believe what you want. Everything doesn't happen in a vacuum. My main point is that a lot of red states receive a ton in Federal money, and without it would have to make some drastic cuts. Wyoming included. So to say that they "pay their bills" isn't entirely accurate, because they pay their bills (at least partially) with Federal money.

And to get back to the topic at hand. From James Madison:

"It has been said that more than a majority ought to have been required for a quorum, and in particular cases, if not in all, more than a majority of a quorum for a decision....[But that would mean] ... [i]n all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule; the power would be transferred to the minority. Were the defense privilege limited to particular cases, an interested minority might take advantage of it to screen themselves from equitable sacrifices to the general weal, or in particular emergencies to extort unreasonable indulgences."

Really understand what he was saying there. I think that explains not only the current senate mess we are in, but the entire debt ceiling debacle. Even then a founding father knew what could happen if a minority of fringe legislators blocked the will of the majority with "unreasonable indulgences".

Blocking those nominations, in my opinion, qualifies as unreasonable. They are very well qualified candidates.

While I hate that it came to this, I certainly understand.

So Beohner changes the rules to empower himself and he is patriot but Reid does it and it socialism. Reid did not break any law or rule and the filibuster was not an intentional tool when it was developed anyway, merely a loop hole. It has been abused by all lately so it is time to say goodbye.
Here is an idea why don't the conservative stop being so partisan and maybe we can go back to the doing things by the "norm" system.
There has been around 160 filibusters total against all Presidents nominees and half have been used against Obama. That should tell you something.
Before Obama Republicans wanted to do away with the filibuster, what has changed?